Thursday, August 4, 2011

Romney joins Bachmann and Santorum in signing a Marriage Pledge.

The three have now promised to not only support amending the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage but also to nominate judges who say the Constitution doesn't guarantee marriage equality.

The to-do list doesn't stop there. As part of the pledge, they swear to put gay marriage up to a vote in the District of Columbia, where local lawmakers made it legal. They promise to fight for the Defense of Marriage Act in court — something President Barack Obama isn't doing.

Romney refused to sign the earlier Iowa Family Leader pledge because it was, "undignified and inappropriate". Bachmann and Santorum had signed that pledge as well.

Government only gets in the marriage business because it has a vested interest in reinforcing institutions that propagate the next generation. It has no business getting involved in whatever other romantic situation anybody else wants. mikeZ

I'm one who thinks 'marriage' should be between one man and one woman. HOWEVER, I also side with Bosman, that there needs to be something else in place (not called 'marriage') that gives the same rights and protections to those who choose a different lifestyle.

Changing the definition of "marriage" to include gays is just the next step to allowing polygamous unions and all other types of redefinitions. Pretty soon, the term "married" will have no definition at all. I am like many of you, I believe we need to protect traditional "marriage," but I am not opposed to trying to make sure that people who live other lifestyles have legal remedies for their situations.

When we allow the definition of marriage to be changed, we will also be forced to change all teachings in textbooks, and public places, and schools. It will become more important to teach children about gender and gender deviations than it will be teach them math, reading and writing. We cannot afford to be distracted by social issues in the schools. We need to stay focused on preparing our children to compete in a world economy. "Gender education" will not help them do that.

You are so right! We can be sensitive to other choices while not fundamentally changing a tradition that has been recognizedfor 1,000's of years. Marriage between a Man and a Womanis the foundation for any culture, and one in which Childrenare born. So many words today have become meaningless, thatwe are finding harder and harder to communicate with eachother, because we aren't quite sure what someone else means,so let's not let Marriage as has been traditionally understoodbe one of them.

Anonymous said...

Changing the definition of "marriage" to include gays is just the next step to allowing polygamous unions and all other types of redefinitions. Pretty soon, the term "married" will have no definition at all. I am like many of you, I believe we need to protect traditional "marriage," but I am not opposed to trying to make sure that people who live other lifestyles have legal remedies for their situations.

When we allow the definition of marriage to be changed, we will also be forced to change all teachings in textbooks, and public places, and schools. It will become more important to teach children about gender and gender deviations than it will be teach them math, reading and writing. We cannot afford to be distracted by social issues in the schools. We need to stay focused on preparing our children to compete in a world economy. "Gender education" will not help them do that.